Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
you're a socialist in the same spirit that the nazis were...
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
In a democracy the collective can decide any issue.

Somebody justified abortion the other day on the grounds that Mr Obama won the election by 2.7%. The somebody is a self-appointed spokesperson for science.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:27 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

you're a socialist in the same spirit that the nazis were...

so we the collective from this day forwards can not take any steps to protect ourselves from this abuse at the hands of irresponsible individuals....because of the Nazi's??!!

I do not agree...that is dictionary definition idiocy.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:29 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
In a democracy the collective can decide any issue

i agree, to include removing the wealth from individuals.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
every time you say collective, another little piece of my hope for humanity dies.

you are all ego, no substance...
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:39 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

every time you say collective, another little piece of my hope for humanity dies.

you are all ego, no substance...

evasion
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 02:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
I have enough of your stink on me for today.

go spout your nonsense to someone who cares...
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 03:07 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
you are all ego, no substance...


Meanwhile, "substance" takes a powder.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 03:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
of those who would place a certain or nearly certain massive cost onto the collective to produce a copy of human who would certainly or nearly certainly never contribute to the collective.... absolutely .


As a socialist hawk I suppose you include what are politely known as the "kept classes". They are said to be on the negative side of not contributing to the collective. Hence they would have a higher priority rating than those who merely never contribute.

To reverse the rating you would need to admit that the kept classes do contribute to the collective and then your socialism is undermined a little.

So you have a choice. You either go for the kept classes before those who only don't contribute or allow your socialism to be undermined. And top of your list will be the most kept classes.

The suspicion arises that you go for the neutrals because they can't defend themselves. Which is a bit right-wing.

These are very delicate questions and don't lend themselves to loose generalisations.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 10:11 am
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/543004_443842065673065_222496933_n.jpg
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 10:21 am
@H2O MAN,
That is similar to saying "fire an empathic person because he/she is not as sociopathic as one of us true sociopaths.

The Quote below is from your buddy Rush I bet he would agree with your strategy of pink slip a way of cleansing those among your own group who disagree with your anti social evolution.



Quote. The Japanese surrendered. But it wasn't because there were negotiations between us and the emperor of Japan. It's because we wiped them out. You might have heard about this. We dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on them. I'm sure you've been taught that. We dropped a couple of nuclear bombs. You probably have been taught that we did this for the fun of it, 'cause we're mean-spirited extremists. But it was in a war when we dropped those bombs, and back in those days, you won wars by killing civilians. The same thing in Germany. When we bombed Germany, we were not bombing military targets. There wasn't any conflict resolution 101 back then. I know this is gonna be shocking news to some of you, but we actually -- and not just us. Everybody targeted civilians, and that's how you won a war, and the Japanese then surrendered and they signed the terms of surrender, and they also pledged to form a new government.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 11:46 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/543004_443842065673065_222496933_n.jpg

That way they can start a company that is much better run than yours, take all your customers because they actually like buying from the person you fired, you go out of business and then you can blame Obama for being on welfare.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 12:00 pm
@parados,
I think H20 ideology runs so deep that he would just find a $10.00 an hour job delivering water before he would consider welfare but I would prefer him to do that as well.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 12:14 pm
@reasoning logic,
Yes rl but in 1945 the US was the only nuclear power. Why did you not wipe the Soviets out during the Cold War?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 12:21 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Yes rl but in 1945 the US was the only nuclear power. Why did you not wipe the Soviets out during the Cold War?


That's interesting spendius. Do you think that if we gave the Palestinians aircraft, bombs, including nuclear bombs that they might be able to get along a lot more peacefully with the Israelis?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2012 06:28 am
@reasoning logic,
I think it might calm everybody down a bit--yes.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2012 01:03 pm
@reasoning logic,
Mutual destruction solved the cold war. If we could get past the nuts it might do some good.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2012 11:15 pm
@RABEL222,
From Yahoo News.
Quote:
Ex-Republicans claim Fla. GOP suppressed Democratic vote
By Rachel Rose Hartman, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 9 hrs ago

Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer has been claiming for months that state party members engineered a new law to suppress voter turnout, falsely touting voter fraud concerns to advance their mission. Now, other former Republicans and consultants are backing Greer up, The Palm Beach Post reports.
Greer, who is under indictment and accused of funneling campaign funds from the Republican Party, has been claiming that state Republicans supported a law (HB 1355)—which, in part, curtailed early voting—simply as a means to stymie the Democratic vote.
Staff and consultants "never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue," Greer told the newspaper. "It's all a marketing ploy."
Former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, GOP consultant Wayne Bertsch and one unnamed consultant now tell the newspaper that state Republicans and consultants were actively seeking ways to suppress Democratic turnout following the 2008 election.
"I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that's a big day when the black churches organize themselves," the anonymous longtime GOP consultant told the newspaper.
State officials continue to discredit Greer as a disgruntled former Republican. Greer, in a deposition filed against the party this summer, accused leaders of working to suppress black turnout and made other damning claims.
Crist is also regarded as an enemy of the GOP following his party switch, his decision to back President Barack Obama for re-election this year, and his subsequent attacks on his former party. This past summer, Crist lambasted the Florida GOP for backing new laws that applied more restrictive voter ID requirements.
Republicans claim that Greer was not privy to the alleged meetings, that the discussions that he claimed took place never happened, and that the GOP did not seek to suppress turnout—a potentially illegal act.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2012 12:15 pm
Whoa! Will Matt Lewis will be drummed out of the Republican inner circle for even suggesting this?

Quote:
As President Obama pitches his plans to the middle class, it occurs to me that he might be one of the most savvy political operators we’ve encountered in a long time. What is more, his long-term significance might be to have presided over a dramatic paradigm shift regarding how the voters view political parties.

Prior to the killing of Obama bin Laden, the Republican Party had, for decades, enjoyed an advantage on national security and foreign policy. For decades, Democrats wore the label of weak on defense like an Albatross around the collective necks of their candidates. That seems to have ended.

Obama mitigated — and possibly even reversed — the Republican advantage. And if Democrats are able to sustain it post-Obama, one could argue that Obama truly changed the trajectory of politics — in a way that even transcends the mere passage of his sweeping health care legislation.

...

If foreign policy wasn’t enough, President Obama might now be attempting to redefine the Democratic Party as the party of middle class tax cuts.

At least, that’s what some conservatives predict. As conservative talk show host Michael Medved warns,

Quote:
Michael [email protected]: Once off the fiscal cliff,Dems will push instantly to restore Bush rates for middle class ONLY,claiming new status as the tax-cutting party. 27 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite


It would be truly ironic if adherence to Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge allowed Democrats to pull off such a flanking maneuver. Norquist, after all, has always argued that it is important for the GOP to won the tax cut “brand.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/28/is-obama-trying-to-redefine-democratic-party-as-the-party-of-tax-cuts/#ixzz2DXg1xfGq
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2012 12:26 pm
@JPB,
Is it being suggested that sending the Seals into dangerous action was motivated by a desire to be seen as hawkish whilst sat in the WH watching it on video link?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama 2012?
  3. » Page 48
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/09/2020 at 02:50:26